question for film purists

[metroshane]

I know there's a lot of discussion about the diff between film and video...but let me ask a question.

After you transfer your film to digital for editing, then back to film for exhibition, how much resolution and all of the other film attributes have you lost?  I mean, is it really still considered film any different than shooting on digital and transferring to 35mm?  It still passes thru the digital phase, right?

[TheVoiceOfNick]

It's all about the flatbed moviola!

You know, the way they do it in Hollywood is they digitize the footage, edit on the computer, create an EDL... Edit Decision List... and with this, they cut the original film and add any opticals they had to add.... it is extremely rare to see a film shot on film, captured to hi-def for the edit, then that actual video from the computer shot back to film... it's just not done...

It's a really misleading statement to say they edit it all through the computer... there is still analog work done at labs.

[kotte]

I know there's a lot of discussion about the diff between film and video...but let me ask a question.

After you transfer your film to digital for editing, then back to film for exhibition, how much resolution and all of the other film attributes have you lost?  I mean, is it really still considered film any different than shooting on digital and transferring to 35mm?  It still passes thru the digital phase, right?

Nothing happens to it. You lose none of the quailty. It's still considered as film.

[metroshane]

You know, the way they do it in Hollywood is they digitize the footage, edit on the computer, create an EDL... Edit Decision List... and with this, they cut the original film and add any opticals they had to add.... it is extremely rare to see a film shot on film, captured to hi-def for the edit, then that actual video from the computer shot back to film... it's just not done...

Thanks, I guess that was my question.  So, who does the print cutting after the EDL is turned in?

[kotte]

You know, the way they do it in Hollywood is they digitize the footage, edit on the computer, create an EDL... Edit Decision List... and with this, they cut the original film and add any opticals they had to add.... it is extremely rare to see a film shot on film, captured to hi-def for the edit, then that actual video from the computer shot back to film... it's just not done...

Thanks, I guess that was my question.  So, who does the print cutting after the EDL is turned in?

The negative cutter...

but I have to say...some films are actually transferred to digital and then transfered back to film.

EDIT: O Brother where art thou is one example of this.

[mutinyco]

We're talking about 2 different things. First, most movies are edited digitally. There are some filmmakers like Spielberg who prefer traditional cutting, but the bulk of all editing is digital at this point.

That said, most movies DO NOT digitally color correct their prints. More and more films are, since the results can be better controlled -- witness Seabiscuit and Intolerable Cruelty -- but most still use the traditional chemical process. Telecine is more expensive.

[Redlum]

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/in_the_directors_chair/rodriguez_robert/1.html

Rober Rodriguez talks about his dealings with Hi-Def vs Film in this interview for the OUATIM dvd.

I have yet to see a good mainstream movie that was shot on hi-def. I've seen some exciting independent stuff but Rodriguez and Lucas don't do anything to help dissuade a "fear" of the new technology or ease film's passing ( ). I mean Lars Von Trier and Soderbergh (even with an XL1) present a much better case for Digital Cinema.

[kotte]

Do you think lower-cost CGI and digital equipment will change the face of independent, low-budget filmmaking?
I think it just opens up the possibilities, where they don't have to think of their movies as just having to be two people sitting across the dinner table anymore. It can be anything they want it to be, and it opens up much more possibilities for surprising people.

What does he mean bu that? A dinner table film is boring compared to big explosions, guns and action (lots of action)? Damn, I hate him for saying that. A "dinner table" film can be 1000 times more fun, interesting and rewarding than a fucking car on fire.

How many projects are you working on in various stages at any given moment?

When I first started out, I was always like a one-project-at-a-time guy. But I was going, "This sucks." Everyone else had development going on, you know, so I should really get involved with other writers and have them all working on material. I like self-generating things.

But over the years, suddenly I had a whole bunch of projects in various stages. So yes, I was just recently looking over them. I think there's like 12. I want to make each one of these, so how do I do that? So I'm trying to jam them all together.

12 projects huh? Well, I guess he's okay with making mediocre films as long as he makes plenty...

[TheVoiceOfNick]

Damn, I hate him for saying that. A "dinner table" film can be 1000 times more fun, interesting and rewarding than a fucking car on fire.

I agree... good writing is good writing, whether you're blowing up cars or sitting across a dinner table.  I recently shot something at a dinner table, and I think it came out well.  In another instance, i've writing something that was supposed to be action packed, but it fell flat.

[Ghostboy]

witness Seabiscuit and Intolerable Cruelty

Not to mention Panic Room, Cold Mountain and The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, among others.

What they do is scan the negative at a ridiculously high resolution and then print it back to film. Aside from the higher control over the visual quality that this provides in color timing, it also allows filmmakers to spend more time tweaking their cut, since the negative is never cut.